The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently struck down the police's decision to open a rowdy sheet against an individual facing trial for criminal charges, stating that the action lacked legal justification and violated the individual’s fundamental rights.
The petitioner was accused under Sections 448, 324, and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with house trespass, causing hurt with dangerous weapons, and criminal intimidation. Although a chargesheet was filed, the case was still under trial. Despite this, the Deputy Superintendent of Police directed that a rowdy sheet be initiated against the petitioner.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court: Pending FIR Not a Reason to Deny Passport Renewal
The petitioner argued that this action was arbitrary and violated his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He contended that the police failed to prove any real threat to public peace or law and order. The rowdy sheet, he claimed, damaged his reputation and caused mental stress.
The case relied heavily on Police Standing Order (PSO) 736, which allows rowdy sheets only for those habitually involved in crimes that disturb public peace. It also considered PSO 742, which provides further conditions, stating that such actions must be based on credible evidence of repeated and dangerous behavior.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court: Gym Equipment Like Treadmills and Dumbbells Are ‘Sports Goods’ Under VAT Act
The police defended their decision by referring to PSO 601, which supports opening rowdy sheets if there is fear among victims to report crimes or if public peace is under threat. However, the court noted that none of these conditions were fulfilled in this case.
“It was not established that the petitioner’s actions were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or peace and tranquility,” Justice Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao stated.
The court cited several landmark judgments to support its ruling. In Kharak Singh v. Union of India (1963), the Supreme Court held that continuous police surveillance without justification violates the right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d). Similarly, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the right to privacy was affirmed as a fundamental right.
Another reference was Udathu Suresh vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, where the court questioned the legal framework under Chapter 37 of the A.P. Police Manual. It was held that opening a rowdy sheet while a criminal case is still pending lacks legal standing.
“The opening of the rowdy sheet in the petitioner’s name was tainted in law from the very beginning,” the court declared.
Ultimately, the High Court found no evidence suggesting that the petitioner was a habitual offender or that his actions endangered public safety. The decision to open the rowdy sheet was deemed unjustified and legally unsound. The writ petition was allowed, and the rowdy sheet was quashed.
Case Number: W.P.No. 7369 OF 2025
Date: 09.05.2025
Case Title: Gonabavi Jani v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
